There is so much out there pointing in every direction that it’s hard sometimes for those of us with less experience to know what’s real. With you and the way you write so forthrightly, I feel like I have a basis for figuring out where the truth is at the moment.

Turow is something else entirely. The way AG and Turow have treated authors… Well, it’s best not to go there.

Damn straight they do. I work in health care, and I am self-employed, and business skills are absolutely essential for me and all the other physios, doctors, chiropractors, natuorpaths out there. Most clinics here are owned by the people who work in them, and if they don’t have business skills, it is painfully obvious to everyone who uses their services.
With the exception of teachers (who work for an academic institution) and under-contract pro-athletes, all the examples Xyzzy gave do need business skills.
I talk to a lot of different kinds of people in my job, including high-end horse trainers, viticulture experts, orchestra musicians and top chefs, and they would laugh themselves silly at the news that they don’t need business skills.
All the ‘top’ chefs, for instance, have major business skills. That’s how they get to the top. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t a clue how the restaurant industry works or what the head chef’s job actually is.
And I take it back about under-contract pro-athletes. They need them too.

I notice that people who already have a basic or better business skill set are quick to see where another profession might apply that skill set; people with no skills are quick to point out where business skills aren’t needed, and they are usually wrong.

Anyway, thanks for another great post Kris.

How he got to that point, though, is a mystery that won’t be solved unless someone stumbles upon a treasure trove of records from that decade. (Possible, but very unlikely.) There is some sketchy evidence Shakespeare might also have been an actor, but whether he was an actor-turned-playwright, playwright-who-dabbled-in-acting, or simply a playwright (& the stories about him acting are all just legends) is unsolvable but not beyond all conjecture.

After we have proof he became a “sharer”, Shakespeare’s name began to have value. Beginning in 1598, his name was attached to his plays, along with the acting company that had performed the play. (The usual practice was to only include the name of the acting company, because the company was better known that the playwright.) But more importantly, his name was sometimes attached to books he hadn’t written; putting his name on a publication had become a way to sell plays & poetry.

My point is that he negotiated the deal that gave him a secure living before he became a name, when he had written less than a third of the plays commonly attributed to him, (Taming of the Shrew, & Richard the III being the best of them, with such plays as Romeo & Juliet, & A Midsummer Night’s Dream yet to come). While he had written some good stuff, clearly nothing worth making him a partner; competent playwrights, even in Elizabethan times, were in abundant supply & cheaply hired.

As for that post from the other author, yeah. [shrug] I’ve been saying for years now that everyone needs to choose their own path in the writing profession. Again, if you look at what I’ve written before (I assume you haven’t, given your comments), you’ll see that I write this blog for all writers, traditional and indie. However, to follow a path these days, any path, you better know business. That’s why I talk about business every single week. Writers need to learn it, just like everyone else who runs their own small business.

That said, I was certain about going the traditional route, but now I’m at least considering the alternative. It would be interesting to see your thoughts in a future post about semi-warnings like this one by a successful indie author:
http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2011/12/07/the-seduction-of-self-publishing/

I found this paragraph utterly astonishing:

“… the publisher’s attorney removed a phrase the lawyer added. That phrase? That the publishing house was to provide “true and accurate” royalty statements. “True and accurate” is a legal phrase generally put in other business contracts in which one party fills out an accounting for the other party. But traditional publishers…well, apparently, they don’t want to do what other businesses do.”

I’m slightly late to this great article Kristine, but Tweeting it out today neverthless.

Jonathan Gunson